Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure whether any part of the 'unwelcome word rejection' software here still silently blocks the posting, as it used to. You might try the test of pasting the full text into a post here — maybe even just editing your OP — to see if that gets the same treatment. If it does you could titrate your message, systematically adding or removing bits, until you discover an offending instance, which you can then try doctoring into acceptability. The incremental mode is preferable if multiple offensiveness is suspected.

Well I've reworded it loads of times and I still can't post it.


This is it:


Adidas_guy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I received electronic proof of delivery from Royal

> Mail which says a parcel was delivered to me at

> 13:54 today and apparently I signed for it?.

> However it was not delivered.



Royal Mail must then show you your signature!


But I thought even Royal Mail took photos these days?

Siduhe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sue, try it without ?Adidas? - I may be completely

> off track but I seem to remember a load of spam

> trainer ads a while back. I wonder if that is a

> banned word?



That's weird, because it's their user name!


I will try! But why would it be OK in this part of the forum and not in others?

Because the banned keywords only apply in the forums that the spammers frequent from memory. I don't think a banned keyword would prevent someone using it in a username, only typing it into the posting box and posting it.


And some of the words are really random - kitchen was banned for a while - but it's all about trying to keep the forum spam free, so I'm grateful!


Glad to hear my memory isn't failing me after all.

The block seems to have just been removed. I was experimenting with editing the username into posts on various boards. It wasn't possible on the ED Issues less than half an hour ago, now it is. And on the Lounge. Before that the only hits across the forum when searching for Adidas_guy were all just his own posts. He seems to have been deprived of his human right to be trolled, insulted or misunderstood for at least two years.

ianr Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The block seems to have just been removed. I was

> experimenting with editing the username into posts

> on various boards. It wasn't possible on the ED

> Issues less than half an hour ago, now it is. And

> on the Lounge. Before that the only hits across

> the forum when searching for Adidas_guy were all

> just his own posts. He seems to have been

> deprived of his human right to be trolled,

> insulted or misunderstood for at least two years.



He must have found it really odd that nobody ever responded to him!


I hope he isn't permanently psychologically damaged!

  • Administrator

Hi, late to the party, apologies. I see there is still a ban on Adidas so not sure how you it got through on the General forum.


I'll remove the ban on that word now anyway as I expect that spammer's gone elsewhere.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The link below has further information suggesting that the shop demolition and square redevelopment is funded separately from the station upgrades, so will go ahead:   https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/peckham-rye-stations-step-free-upgrade-has-been-put-on-hold-82360/ 
    • Last time the toilets were out of operation in the station M&S we were all told to go out and up to Sainsbo! Certainly didn't close (I'm not suggesting that's the thing the library should do!)
    • Was it the two proxy votes that had swung it for Cllr McAsh in the first round? Interesting that he lost by two votes in the second. One wonders what the next move for Cllr McAsh is and whether the infighting will continue between the various factions within Southwark Labour?
    • Has anything emerged as to how the reported misinterpretation of rules ruling out proxy votes occurred, or what the specific fault was?  I've found and looked through https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Labour-group-model-standing-orders-2023.pdf, which afaics seems to be a prime relevant document.  It allows for local council Labour groups making minor amendments to cater for their council's particular form of organisation.  I've not seen any _explicit_ mention of proxy voting in the model SOs document itself.  I'm  attaching my notes on it.     re_Labour-Group-Model-SOs.txt
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...